Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Henry W. Quintana, 70 F.3d 1167, 10th Cir. (1995)
United States v. Henry W. Quintana, 70 F.3d 1167, 10th Cir. (1995)
3d 1167
43 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 454
Under Utah Code Ann. Sec. 77-23a-10(1)(c), each wiretap order must
include 'a full and complete statement as to whether other investigative
procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be
either unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous.' See also 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2518(1)(c). This statement is known as the necessity requirement.
See Nunez, 877 F.2d at 1472. Additionally, the judge must make a
finding, based on the facts submitted by the applicant, that 'normal
investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably
appear to be either unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous....' Utah
Code Ann. Sec. 77-23a-10(2)(c); see also 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(3)(c).
******
The second supplemental application and affidavit submitted by the police
completely fail to address the necessity requirement.
Id. at 293.
This ruling is, of course, binding on us, and given the suppression of that
order, we reverse Quintana's convictions on count one and counts seven
through thirty-two, which were based in material part on conversations
intercepted pursuant to the said second supplemental order.
We next turn to Quintana's challenge to the validity of the first
supplemental order, an order not in issue in Mondragon, supra. Quintana
argues that, like the second supplemental order, the first supplemental
order failed to meet the necessity requirement, thus requiring reversal of
his conviction on counts two through six, the evidence of which consisted
largely of conversations intercepted pursuant to the first supplemental
order. We note that a wiretap authorization order is presumed proper, and
a defendant carries the burden of overcoming this presumption. United
States v. Nunez, 877 F.2d 1470, 1472 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
981, 110 S.Ct. 514, 107 L.Ed.2d 515 (1989). We review de novo whether
the Sec. 2518(1)(c) necessity requirement was met. United States v.
Armendariz, 922 F.2d 602, 608 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
823, 112 S.Ct. 87, 116 L.Ed.2d 59 (1991). Observing that Utah Code
Ann. Sec. 77-23a-10, pursuant to which the order here issued, is
substantially identical to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518, the federal statute
governing wiretaps, we apply federal law in our review of the
admissibility of the evidence derived from the said interceptions.
Armendariz, 922 F.2d at 607. The original order issued by Judge Murphy
on October 25, 1991, and its supporting application complied with the
probable cause and necessity requirements of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.
Secs. 2510 et seq., and is not attacked here, nor was it in Mondragon. That
order authorized electronic surveillance of one telephone and one mobile
phone, both of which were listed in the name of Quintana's mother,
Barbara. Monitoring was never initiated on the mobile phone, however,
because the day the order issued, and before monitoring could begin, Mrs.
Quintana obtained a new number for the said phone. Four days later, on
October 29, 1991, Judge Murphy issued a supplemental order authorizing
a wiretap on the same phone with its new number. Although the
supplemental application did not address the "necessity requirement" as
such,1 we are satisfied that it is nevertheless valid, whether under a
common sense approach to the Wiretap Act, see Nunez, 877 F.2d at 1472,
or under the spirit of guidance enunciated in United States v. Ventresca:
This Court is alert to invalidate unconstitutional searches and seizures
whether with or without a warrant. By doing so, it vindicates individual
liberties and strengthens the administration of justice by promoting respect
for law and order. This Court is equally concerned to uphold the actions of
law enforcement officers consistently following the proper constitutional
course. This is no less important to the administration of justice than the
invalidation of convictions because of disregard of individual rights or
official overreaching. In our view the officers in this case did what the
Constitution requires. They obtained a warrant from a judicial officer
'upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the ... things to be seized.' It is
vital that having done so their actions should be sustained under a system
of justice responsive both to the needs of individual liberty and to the
rights of the community.
380 U.S. 102, 111-12, 85 S.Ct. 741, 747-48, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (citations
omitted).
The supplemental order was issued a mere four days after the original order for
the sole reason, as noted, that the telephone number had been changed. We note
that, in contrast, the second supplemental order held invalid in Mondragon
authorized surveillance of a new number, listed in the name of a different
individual residing at a different location.
Quintana argues alternatively that his conviction on the remaining counts must
be reversed because of prejudice resulting from the district court's failure to
suppress evidence derived from the second supplemental order. We agree to the
extent that a new trial is mandated as to those counts. Communications
Quintana next contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing
detective Watson to testify as an expert witness to the meaning of the
conversations recorded on the wiretap tapes and by allowing him to use a chart
which summarized his findings. The district judge's determination to allow the
expert testimony and receipt of the chart into evidence is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Simpson, 7 F.3d 186, 188 (10th Cir.1993).
can assist the jury in understanding transactions and terminology. See United
States v. Garcia, 994 F.2d 1499 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Sturmoski,
971 F.2d 452, 459 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. McDonald, 933 F.2d 1519,
1522-23 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 897, 112 S.Ct. 270, 116 L.Ed.2d 222
(1991); Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 809 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 1008, 109 S.Ct. 792, 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989). A review of the record
reveals that Watson's testimony was designed to aid the jury's understanding of
the wiretap evidence. For example, a taped conversation between Quintana and
his father included references to "balls." Watson testified that the term "ball"
meant "one 8th of an ounce of cocaine, an 8 ball." Trial Tr. at II-106. Similarly,
Watson interpreted an intercepted conversation between Quintana and Johnny
Salizar in which Quintana says he paid Rodrigo Alanis "150 for every 9."
Watson testified: "That represented to me he paid $150 for every 9 ounces of
cocaine that [Alanis] handled on [Quintana's] behalf." Trial Tr. at II-122. The
following colloquy is illustrative of Watson's testimony:
7 Detective Watson, directing your attention to page 4 of the transcript and there is
Q:
reference to 8 and a half. Are you able to interpret that reference?
8A: Yeah. That 8 and a half referred to 8 and a half ounces of cocaine.
9 Now there is also a reference to it's been stomped on, those are the words that are
Q:
used. Have you heard that term used before?
10 Yeah, that's another term which is used to describe the cutting that we talked
A:
about earlier. When a lot of cutting agent is added to the cocaine decreasing its
percentage of purity then it's referred to as being cut and sometimes stomped on.
11
Trial Tr. at II-118. Watson's testimony clearly fell within the parameters of
Rule 702 and precedent in this Circuit. Moreover, The district judge cautioned
the jury that they were the fact finders and that they should afford Watson's
testimony the weight they deemed appropriate. Trial Tr. at II-127. Quintana
obviously also had the opportunity to challenge Watson on cross-examination.
We conclude that the district judge did not abuse his discretion by allowing
Watson to testify as an expert.
12
Finally, Quintana contends that count one charging him with a violation of the
Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848 should have been
dismissed, there being insufficient evidence to permit a jury to conclude that he
occupied a position of organizer, or was in a supervisory or management
position with respect to five or more others in the operation of the drug ring.
However, putting the tapes from the second supplemental order to one side, a
reading of the transcripts of the tapes obtained pursuant to the first
supplemental order, by themselves, and however cryptic, furnishes a sufficient
basis, together with other testimony, to permit a jury to convict on that count,
should the jury on retrial credit the admissible evidence.
14
The Honorable Richard Owen, Senior District Judge for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation
The supplemental affidavit of Deputy Sheriff Craig Watson did put before
Judge Murphy the circumstances of his learning of the new number for Barbara
Quintana's mobile phone, and that the prior papers had fully provided "probable
cause" for Barbara's mobile phone with a different number, which Watson was
entitled to state, Judge Murphy having just signed the prior order